On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 01:09:27AM +0100, Petr Muller wrote:
> I'm playing with sparse a bit, especially the context/locking problem
> detecting stuff. I'm trying to create simple context updating
> lock/unlock, everything works as I would expect except for this case
> (I've reduced it as much as possible) :
>
> #ifdef __CHECKER__
> #define __acquires(x) __attribute__((context (x, 0, 1)))
> #define __releases(x) __attribute__((context (x, 1, 0)))
> #define __acquire(x) __context__(x,1)
> #define __release(x) __context__(x,-1)
> #else
> (...)
> #endif
>
> (...)
>
> void lock(void)
> __acquires(i)
> {
> __acquire(i);
> }
>
> void unlock(void)
> __releases(i)
> {
> __release(i);
> }
>
> void fction(int a)
> {
> lock();
> lock();
> unlock();
> unlock();
> }
>
> int main(void){
> fction(1);
> return 0;
> }
>
> Sparse gives no warning in this code - I would expect that second call
> to lock() would violate the 'in' limit of __acquires attribute, but it
> does not. I'm wondering if this is actually a problem in sparse, or am I
> doing something wrong?
As far as I know, Sparse currently treats the "in" context as a minimum
requirement, not an exact requirement. Thus, a context of 0 ends up
meaning "may or may not hold the lock", while 1 means "must hold the
lock at least once".
I think that needs fixing.
- Josh Triplett
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
